This study continues a program of research into the
nature of powerful learning experiences, with a
focus this time on e-learning contexts. It was
conducted using structured phone interviews with
adult learners pursuing undergraduate degrees
through e-learning coursework. Among other things,
data suggest that meaningful social interaction and
emotions may be important components in powerful
learning experiences. In addition, the data suggest
that powerful learning can indeed occur in
e-learning environments. Results of this study
combine with those from three previous studies to
point toward practices of instructional designers
and educators that may contribute to powerful
learning in e-learning environments. Further
examination of powerful learning in such
environments holds promise.

What makes a learning experience powerful? For
instance, what makes one experience especially
memorable while another is easily forgotten? If we
knew, could we take specific actions that might make
learning experiences more powerful? The present
study is the fourth in a series, and the first in
the series to extend from traditional learning
environments to the area of e-learning. E-learning
is defined here as encompassing “a wide set of
applications and processes such as Web-based
learning, computer-based learning, virtual
classrooms, and digital collaboration. It includes
the delivery of content via Internet,
intranet/extranet (LAN/WAN), audio- and videotape,
satellite broadcast, interactive TV, CD-ROM, and
more” (Kaplan-Lieserson, n.d.).

Background

This series of studies evolved out of the concern
that traditional approaches to instructional design
tended to focus on the attainment of only low-level
learning goals (e.g., several authors in Seels,
1995). Through these studies, the authors endeavor
to add to work that addresses more meaningful,
higher-level goals such as “understanding” (e.g.,
Kember, 1991; Wilson et al., 1995; Gardner, 1999;
Perkins & Unger, 1999; Reigeluth & Squire, 1998) and
to serve educators, researchers, and policymakers
who are looking for updated learning and schooling
models that can better address the increasing use of
e-learning technologies (McCombs & Vakili, 2005).

While the term “powerful” can be applied to the
process of learning, for instance, to a learning
experience that has special qualities that make it
especially effective and/or efficient (Brandt, 1998;
McPhee, 1996), it often refers to the outcomes of
learning. For instance, learning that is powerful
results in new knowledge and skills that change how
one thinks and acts in some substantial way and
often transfers to a wide range of circumstances. In
the present study, powerful learning experience
was defined as one that stands out in memory because
of its high quality, its impact on one’s thoughts
and actions over time, and its application in a wide
range of circumstances.

The specific aim of the series of studies is to
learn more about the nature of powerful learning
experiences and the conditions or factors that might
be involved in making them special. This descriptive
work is intended to eventually lead to insights that
designers and educators might consider as they
develop courses. The approach for this study was
similar to the approaches used by Visser and Visser
(2000) and Perry (2002), who asked people to reflect
on particularly meaningful learning experiences in
their pasts.

As in the previous three studies (Rowland & DiVasto,
2001; Rowland, Hetherington, & Raasch, , 2002;
Rowland, Lederhouse, & Satterfield, 2004), two
assumptions impacted the approach. First, learners
were assumed capable of recognizing when an
experience was powerful. Secondly, although some of
the factors might be internal (i.e., characteristics
of the learner) and may not be readily exposed by
the learner himself or herself, the learner was
assumed capable of communicating at least some of
the factors involved in his or her experience.

The three previous studies of powerful learning by
adult learners provided a foundation for this fourth
study. In the first study (2001), Rowland and
DiVasto conducted extensive multi-stage interviews
and surveys (see Appendix for similar survey) and
made comparisons between a small, highly diverse
group of learners and a group of instructional
design experts regarding what each group believed
were factors and key elements of powerful learning
experiences. Factors that emerged included active
engagement in authentic settings (i.e., in settings
that either represent or approximate environments
where knowledge and skill is typically applied),
personal interaction with mentor/expert teacher
(i.e. with someone who serves as a mentor and who is
also an expert teacher), and opportunity for
reflection in and on action. Much uniqueness was
noted among individual participants’ responses, and
it was hypothesized that powerful learning may be an
individual experience that designers can do little
to affect.

In the second study (2002), Rowland, Hetherington,
and Raasch sought to determine if clearer themes
would emerge from more similar groups. Adult
professionals with considerable work experience in
four fields were surveyed. Themes that emerged as
factors in their powerful learning experiences
included active learning, personal
growth/development, relationship between instructor
and learner, relevance to one’s work and/or life,
and personalization (i.e., adaptation of instruction
for the individual learner). However, no single
factor was identified by more than one third of the
participants, so just as in the first study, most
support was given to the conclusion that powerful
learning experiences are unique to the individual.

The third study (Rowland, Lederhouse, & Satterfield,
2004) involved surveys of undergraduate students in
three professional fields and explored the question
of whether an even greater coherence in participant
groups would lead to identifiable themes relating to
powerful learning. Across the responses, several
themes emerged including hands-on activity;
practical application in real or authentic
environments; and supportive interactions with
others. However, no themes represented the responses
of a majority of participants. Therefore, the
evidence continued to suggest that learning
experiences and the factors that make them powerful
are unique to individuals and/or specific
circumstances.

Participants in all three previous studies rarely
viewed ‘instructional technology’ as a contributing
factor to powerful learning. Yet, e-learning
opportunities continue to grow. For example, in
their most recent report regarding the status of
online higher education, the Sloan Consortium stated
that “higher education institutions taught nearly
3.2 million online students during the fall term of
2005, an increase of about 850,000 students and a
growth rate of 35 percent” since their previous 2005
report (Allen & Seaman, 2006, p. 5). Therefore, in
response to the increasing use of e-learning
technologies, the present study began to explore
powerful learning in e-learning contexts.

Method

The names and e-mail addresses of approximately 180
potential student participants were supplied to us
by a New York State college in early 2006. A target
of twelve participants was set, and participants
were recruited through an e-mail invitation. Those
who responded were sent an electronic consent form
to complete. Interview appointments were set up with
the nine students who completed consent forms. Prior
to their interviews, participants were e-mailed
topics to reflect upon, including their memorable
learning experiences, their past e-learning
experiences, and any circumstances that might
enhance their learning. Structured phone interviews
were then conducted with nine adult students who
were seeking bachelor’s degrees primarily through
e-learning classes.

Interview questions were tested with four Ithaca
College graduate students who would not be part of
the study. Based on the flow of those interviews and
the students’ feedback, the questions were refined
(see Appendix). Interviews began with several
questions about participants’ professional
backgrounds and their use of computers. Participants
were also asked to identify their ages in terms of
ranges that were offered by the interviewer. The
gender of each participant was inferred by the
interviewer. The interviewer then defined a powerful
learning experience and asked participants to
describe a learning experience that had been very
powerful for them. In order to uncover significant
factors in their experiences, participants were
asked to expand upon their descriptions by naming
components or aspects of the experiences that might
have contributed to those experiences being powerful
for them. Similar questions then examined e-learning
experiences. Participants were then asked to compare
their two types of experiences and describe any
similarities or differences between their powerful
e-learning experiences and other types of learning
experiences.

The next questions involved future possibilities for
powerful learning with the intention of constructing
theoretical and/or practical paths from current
approaches toward ideal states. Participants were
asked to imagine and describe what could be a
powerful learning experience in an ideal world and,
then, in an ideal e-learning context. These
descriptions led naturally to a comparison and a
question of barriers or constraints that currently
prevent e-learning experiences from being more
powerful. Lastly, participants were asked for
recommendations to e-learning instructors or
designers that might improve e-learniperiences,
then for any additional comments or insights about
e-learning and/or powerful learning. After responses
were accumulated, identifying information was
removed.

Beyond the simple tabulation of demographic data,
data were analyzed in an inductive manner, moving
from data in individual responses, to categories and
cross-case comparisons, essentially following steps
proposed by Tesch (1990). The authors started with
an independent examination of each participant’s
response to each question, then compared
interpretations and allowed categories to begin to
emerge. Next, again working independently, the
authors coded all responses by category, allowing
the coding to further refine the category. Codings
were compared, and the few differences that were
found were easily resolved (i.e., discussion
revealed either a miscoding by one author or one
alternative coding that both authors agreed was more
reasonable). The authors then created a large
question X participant table with coded responses in
the cells. Some detail beyond the codes was
maintained in the cells in order to stay closer to
the data. Once again working independently, the
authors searched for meaningful relationships across
responses and participants, for example, the
emergence of subgroups. As before, few
inconsistencies were found between interpretations,
and these were easily resolved. Finally, results
were compared with those from the previous three
studies following the same analytic process (i.e.,
first by each author individually, then comparing
interpretations).

Results

Demographics

Participants included seven females and two males.
One person was 18–25 years old, one person was
26–35, and all others were over 36. Two participants
described themselves as being in the accounting
field, one was a school bus driver, one worked in
education, and one worked in the high-tech field.
Years of experience in their fields covered a range
from less than five years to over twenty years. Four
participants did not currently perceive themselves
to be members of a professional field and thus chose
to self-identify as students.

Computer Experience

All participants described themselves as being
comfortable using a computer, two being moderately
comfortable, five very comfortable, and two
extremely comfortable. When asked how often they use
a computer each day, one person said 1–2 hours, four
said 3–6 hours, and four said 7–12 hours.

E-Learning Experience

When asked about their experience with e-learning,
two participants said that they had a little
experience, four said a good amount of experience,
and three said an extensive amount of experience.
(Participants were all enrolled in programs that are
delivered primarily via e-learning, but they were
not asked how far along they were in those
programs.)

Powerful Learning Experiences

Participants shared a wide range of what they
considered to be powerful learning experiences—from
a high school field trip to the loss of a family
member. The authors found no patterns among these
experiences, for example, with regard to context,
type of activity, or specific outcome. As far as
conditions or factors that contributed to these
experiences being powerful, a few patterns did
emerge. All nine participants described experiences
that involved active engagement in authentic (real
or realistic) settings, settings such as community
meetings, family environments, and business
conferences. All nine participants also described
experiences that included meaningful interactions
with other people. These other people were not
described as simply being bystanders to experiences;
instead, certain people—often teachers, community
members, peers, professional colleagues, and family
members­—seemed to play integral roles in
participants’ processes of personal meaning making.

Five participants indicated that a high emotional
state or emotional bond was involved. Four
participants said that their personal response to
pain, fear, and/or loss was a contributing factor.
Two participants stated that their experiences were
powerful because the experiences were new or out of
the norm.

Only six of the nine participants said that they
could recall any e-learning experiences that were
“good” and were thus able to provide answers to
questions in this area. Three participants indicated
that flexibility contributed positively to their
experiences—flexibility in time and course
interactions, in sources of learning materials, and
in learning activities.

Three participants said the instructor and/or
delivery method was important. Two participants
described the use of resources beyond the text as
having contributed to their positive experiences.
Four participants expressed that their e-learning
experiences were beyond ”good” and could be
described as ”powerful.“ No patterns were found
across responses when participants compared their
powerful learning experiences and e-learning
experiences.

Powerful Learning in an Ideal World

Descriptions of powerful learning in an ideal world
produced several patterns. Participants cited the
desirability of hands-on/experiential aspects (three
participants), flexibility and/or control (three),
virtual classroom experiences (two), a combination
of e-learning and classroom learning (two), and
real-time interaction with others (two).

When considering an ideal world, and comparing
similarities and differences between imagined
powerful learning and imagined powerful e-learning,
two participants felt that both types of experiences
could be similar because they both involved
interaction with others. Two participants saw
similarities in the component of real-time
interaction. Two participants expressed that the two
types of ideal experiences would be different
because e-learning is not experiential for them.

Barriers to E-Learning Experiences

When asked about what barriers prevent e-learning
from being more powerful, three participants
described computer and/or technology difficulties.
Three participants described inadequate
contact/involvement by professors. Two participants
felt that mistrust of students on the part of some
professors (i.e., treating responsible adult
students as irresponsible children) created a
barrier. Two participants cited other students’ poor
commitment as being a barrier.

Recommendations to Designers

Three participants suggested that more professor
interaction might make e-learning experiences more
powerful. Three participants suggested more
real-time, synchronous interaction. Two participants
suggested more assistance in using the computer. Two
participants suggested providing course content that
was more than just text.

Other Topics

Two topics of interest emerged from a comparison of
responses across interview questions. First, several
participants brought up the topic of online
discussions. One offered a positive view, another
offered a negative view, and five others described
both positive and negative aspects. Second, the role
of the professor in online courses surfaced across
participant responses to several different
questions. Two participants made positive comments
about their professors’ impact on their learning
while five participants shared stories about
difficulties they experienced as a result of the
practices of their professors. Two participants did
not mention professors’ impacts on their learning.

Summary

Two themes emerged from responses by all
participants. All nine described powerful learning
experiences that demonstrated active engagement in
authentic settings, and all of the powerful learning
experiences cited involved meaningful interactions
with other people.

For learning experiences in general, and for a
majority of participants, emotion surfaced as an
aspect of powerful learning. Several participants
stated having a preference for hands-on or
experiential learning. Also, the uniqueness of a
learning experience contributed to its being
powerful for several participants.

In the area of e-learning, participants identified
flexibility as a feature of positive learning
experiences, and they expressed a desire for more
real-time interaction, more contact with their
professors, and more computer assistance. Finally,
participants expressed mixed views about online
discussions and they noted the significance—both
positive and negative—of their interactions with
professors in e-learning courses.

Discussion and Implications

The intent of the study was to begin to focus
exploration of the phenomenon of powerful learning
on the context of e-learning. The authors conducted
interviews with a small number of college students
pursuing undergraduate degrees through e-learning
coursework. From this small set of interviews it
would not be appropriate to make broad
generalizations. However, some notable patterns of
interest could be seen across the responses,
particularly when considered in combination with
results from the previous three studies.

Before discussing those patterns, however, several
other limitations should be acknowledged. First,
interviews were fairly structured and lasted only
about 20 minutes for each participant. Second,
interviews were conducted over the telephone and,
therefore, missed nuances that might come from
face-to-face interaction. And third, interviews were
all conducted by one female researcher (first
author). Her manner of questioning and the fact that
she was female may have had an influence on
participant responses.

In terms of interpreting results, several
participant examples of powerful learning
experiences surprised the authors, and this revealed
an initial bias. A powerful learning experience was
defined as being one that stands out in memory
because of its high quality, its impact on one’s
thoughts and actions over time, and its application
in a wide range of circumstances. How could a simple
Web conference or a high school field trip be
powerful in this sense? It became clear that
what participants considered to be powerful learning
was highly personal and complex, and that the
authors were unconsciously imposing an inappropriate
external standard. This did not affect data
gathering in any way the authors are aware of, nor
did it affect interpretation once it was exposed.

Similarly, the authors came to realize that they had
begun the study with a bit of skepticism regarding
the ability of e-learning environments to support
powerful learning. In contrast, four participants
described online classes as having been powerful
learning experiences for them. For instance, one
participant said that an online class had “opened up
many new avenues” for her. Another said her learning
was powerful because of the many “expressions of
personal experience” that took place during the
class. Another said that her e-learning course
provided her with “deeper insights into how people
think.” In fact, some participants perceived the
mere existence of e-learning and its associated
opportunities as having made their learning
powerful. As one participant expressed, “had it not
been for e-learning, I would not be finishing my
degree.” Results reveal that, at least for some
people, powerful learning can occur in e-learning
environments.

In terms of patterns that emerged, active engagement
in authentic settings was an important aspect of
powerful learning described in this study as well as
in the previous three studies. For example,
participants in this study shared stories such as
speaking to a group at an Alcoholics Anonymous
meeting, connecting with peers at a symposium, and
interacting with children at home. Additionally, in
descriptions of ideal learning situations,
participants expressed things such as “virtual
reality,” a “live participatory component,” and
learning “in real life” situations as being
preferable components of their ideal learning
experiences. Authenticity of setting was defined in
terms of realism or fidelity, that is, how realistic
the environment in which the learning occurred was
perceived to be in comparison to the context where
tasks would normally occur or in which knowledge
and/or skills would typically be applied. This did
not necessarily imply physical fidelity, but rather,
it referred to learners’ perceptions.

Authenticity of setting appears possible in
e-learning, but due to the different challenges
involved in the e-learning context, this definition
may need to be broadened. For example, Barab,
Squire, and Dueber (2000) propose that authenticity
occurs “not in the learner, the task, or the
environment, but in the dynamic interactions among
these various components…authenticity is manifest in
the flow itself, and is not an objective feature of
any one component in isolation” (p. 38). Data from
the present study suggest that authenticity in this
sense may be important in powerful learning
experiences, including those involving e-learning.

Another pattern that emerged was that all nine
participants described powerful learning experiences
where another person or other people played active
roles in their individual meaning-making processes.
These included people such as teachers, children,
group members, and peers, in contexts such as
meetings, classes, and parent-child interactions.
For example, one participant described an e-learning
class that she felt was powerful because, “the
instructor made it fun.” Another participant talked
about his powerful learning including “input from
other peers in your field that have had similar
experiences.” And another participant who does home
schooling said her learning was powerful because it
included “learning with my children.” Even when
describing good or powerful e-learning situations,
information about active, meaningful interactions
with teachers or peers was included in all
participant accounts of their experiences.

This finding was consistent with a large majority of
the 271 experiences described by 82 participants in
the three previous studies. In those studies
interaction with others, such as relationships with
instructors and collaborations with peers, was
frequently cited as a factor in descriptions of
powerful learning experiences. Analyses from all
four studies do not reveal how interaction
with other people affects powerful learning
experiences, but the fact that it does seems likely.
That is, it seems that some form of meaningful
social interaction may be a significant ingredient
in powerful learning experiences.

In e-learning environments particularly, emphasizing
the presence of others, through discussions,
communication with instructors, and other social
interactions may be especially significant. When
that social interaction was lacking or poorly
facilitated by instructors, participants in this
study expressed dissatisfaction. For example, one
participant shared that she had “no real interaction
with professors” and “felt like I was talking to
myself.” Another participant expressed the need for
more “professor interaction to keep things on
track.” And another said that at times “teachers
seemed to disappear” and this was a barrier to
making her learning experience a powerful one.
Further research should be conducted into other
peoples’ role(s) in individuals’ powerful learning
experiences.

Dirkx (2001) suggests that “personally significant
and meaningful learning is fundamentally grounded in
and is derived from the adult’s emotional,
imaginative connection with the self and with the
broader social world” (p. 64). Five participants in
the present study described a high emotional state
or emotional bond. For example, one participant
talked about the emotion of seeing her community’s
negative reaction to a mixed-race couple. As a
result she developed life-long empathy for those who
are persecuted. Another participant described her
emotional bond with her daughter as being an
important component in the powerful learning she has
recently experienced as a new mother. It is
interesting that the seven study participants who
were women included emotional aspects of their
powerful learning experiences in their descriptions.
The two male participants gave accounts of
experiences that did not include descriptions of
emotions at all. This may suggest that women find
emotion to be an important factor in powerful
learning. On the other hand, it may also be the
result of the female participants feeling more
comfortable describing emotions to a female
interviewer or simply the inclination of the two
males not to provide emotional descriptions.
Nonetheless, future research into connections
between emotion and powerful learning seem
warranted.

Also in the realm of emotion, four participants said
that their personal response to pain, fear, and/or
loss was a contributing factor to their power
learning experiences. One participant “learned how
much we can overcome” through the experience of
losing her son. Another participant described a
powerful experience involving a poorly-skilled
teacher. She talked about her painful loss of
confidence and her wish that she could change
teachers halfway through a course. “I say that—but I
learned how to deal. How can you say eliminating the
bad stuff is good? Maybe it’s the best.” These
responses suggested that powerful learning can occur
in contexts that are both pleasant and unpleasant,
another finding consistent with previous studies.

Descriptions of contexts of active, experiential
learning came up in all participant stories about
powerful learning. Previous studies (Rowland &
DiVasto, 2001; Rowland, Hetherington, & Raasch,
2002; Rowland, Lederhouse, & Satterfield, 2004),
also support this theme. One participant described
how she would like to interview and interact
directly with an expert in her field. Another spoke
about the desirability of experiences where she
could “actually see why you’re learning what you’re
learning… and how it can be applied in real life.”

Flexibility and control were themes that emerged in
three responses to questions about good e-learning
experiences and in three responses about powerful
learning in an ideal world. For example, one
participant offered a Web conference as an example
of a good e-learning experience. He indicated that
he liked the flexibility of Web-based conferences.
He explained that they are easy to schedule and that
there is no need to make travel plans. Because of
this flexibility, he said that more people can
attend Web-based conferences, and he felt that there
tends to be better input from diverse backgrounds
than the input from one group meeting in a room
somewhere. Another participant said that because she
has health issues, the flexibility to do class work
only on her “good days” makes online courses ideal
for her. One participant spoke in terms of control,
saying that being able to make changes “if things
weren’t going well” would enhance her learning in an
ideal world. Another participant described
flexibility relating to the instructor’s manner or
delivery method and said she appreciated an
instructor who created assignments that “allowed her
to do her own thing.” As Garrison and Anderson
(2003) suggest, “control in content and process is a
catalyst for spontaneous and creative learning
experiences and outcomes” (p. 18). Results from this
study support this notion.

Technological aspects of e-learning were mentioned
as factors impacting e-learning experiences. Two
participants said that real-time interaction was a
component of good e-learning experiences, and three
others cited this as a recommendation to e-learning
designers. One participant stated that “today’s
environment lacks real-time power.” Another said
that the lack of real-time interaction made her feel
as if she were talking to herself at times. Several
participants mentioned the importance of a
well-functioning computer system and/or of lessons
for which navigation functions have been thoroughly
tested. For example, when asked about
recommendations for instructional designers that
might make e-learning experiences more powerful, one
participant blurted out, “make sure the links work!”
These responses suggested that the technologies used
in e-learning settings influence learning
experiences, at least for some people.

Participants provided mixed views about e-learning
experiences involving asynchronous online
discussions. Six participants mentioned enjoying
them or finding them helpful. However, five of those
participants also expressed that they found online
discussions problematic due to factors such as other
students’ poor communication skills and attitudes,
poor discussion facilitation by professors, and
difficulty communicating due to lack of real-time,
synchronous options. For example, two participants
suggested that because people can be somewhat
anonymous in online discussions, fellow students do
not always give enough thought to what they are
writing and to who might be in the discussion. As
one participant put it, “language can be
dangerous…it’s not a chat room.” Increased
involvement of professors in guiding asynchronous
discussions was suggested by four participants as a
way to improve discussions in e-learning situations.

Additionally, several participants mentioned the
role of professors in e-learning experiences. They
expressed a desire for their professors to be more
available and, as one participant put it, “more
involved and on top of things.” Others felt that
professors need to make personal connections with
students. The importance of the instructor-learner
relationship was a factor in previous studies
(Rowland & DiVasto, 2001; Rowland, Hetherington, &
Raasch, 2002; Rowland, Lederhouse, & Satterfield,
2004) and, when combined with this study, suggests
that instructors do play a role in determining the
quality of learning experiences in formal settings.

Only four participants felt they could describe
their e-learning experiences as being powerful.
However, it seemed that what made learning powerful
for these participants was the content and/or
activity, not the e-learning medium per se.
For instance, a participant spoke about an online
history course that she “didn’t want to take in the
first place,” explaining that it turned out to be
extremely powerful for her because the content
opened up new ideas and broadened her interests.
Still, the results support the notion that powerful
learning is possible in e-learning environments for
at least some people.

The study’s overall results appear to reflect two
theoretical perspectives. First, results were
consistent in several ways with the perspective of
constructivism, which suggests that knowledge
is actively constructed and reconstructed by
individuals through reflection upon past and present
experiences (Piaget, 1957; Bruner, 1960). All
descriptions of powerful learning experiences
involved active engagement in events by the
participants, not just in terms of doing things but
actively making meaning through the doing. And
participants frequently cited that, through
reflection during and after their experiences, they
achieved deeper and highly personal understandings,
not just, for example, reinforcement via rehearsal.

More specifically, results seem to point toward a
collaborative constructivist perspective of
learning, which has its roots in the works of Lev
Vygotsky and John Dewey. This perspective stresses
the “inseparable relationship between personal
meaning making and the social influence in shaping
the educational transaction” (Garrison & Anderson,
2003, p. 12). For instance, all participant
descriptions of powerful learning involved
meaningful interactions with other people, not just
in terms of an exchange of information but in what
appeared to be a negotiation of meaning as both
parties came to new and personal understandings. No
study participant described a powerful learning
experience where he or she simply observed an event
in solitary and reacted to it, in other words,
vicarious learning which may have been accounted for
by an objectivist learning theory.

A second perspective that was especially
interesting, and which is just beginning to be
applied in the areas of human learning and
performance, was complex systems theory (see
Rowland, 2007). Results from the four studies
suggest that powerful learning may be an emergent
phenomenon—a unique result of non-linear
interactions among components (e.g., Gleick, 1987).
A non-linear interaction is one in which effects are
not proportional to causes and, therefore, one whose
effects cannot be predicted by the examination of
simple causal relationship among separate parts.
Specifically, three related results include: (1)
power has not been described as the result of single
causal factors or any consistent group of factors,
(2) the effect obtained appears significant beyond
what one might expect from a simple causal (i.e.,
linear) interaction of factors, and (3) there
appears to be little consistency across experiences
in the factors cited and how they interact. These
approximate the characteristics of emergent
phenomenon described by Morowitz (2002) and others.
If powerful learning is emergent, then it is largely
unpredictable and, therefore, a search for typical
prescriptive design principles (i.e., if learning
goal X, then apply method Y) would be futile (e.g.,
Brown, 2002; McDaniel, 2007). Rather, the designer
seeking to facilitate powerful learning would likely
find it more effective to focus on creating
conditions in which powerful learning would be more
probable.

Conclusion

The descriptions provided by the participants of
this study appear to reinforce findings from
previous studies that powerful learning experiences
are likely to be individual and to result from many
factors coming together in a unique way.
Consequently, it would appear difficult if not
impossible to engineer them through applying simple
prescriptive principles. On the other hand, results
indicate a strong tendency for social interactions
and active engagement in authentic settings to play
a role.

Results also suggest that powerful learning
experiences are possible in e-learning environments.
While instructional designers and educators may not
be able to control or prescribe individual
experiences of powerful learning, the inclusion of
meaningful social interaction and active engagement
in authentic settings in courses may increase the
likelihood that individuals will find their learning
experiences to be more powerful.

These results are preliminary. Larger numbers of
participants and more in-depth methods should reveal
how far results from previous studies extend to
e-learning, and provide greater insight into
powerful learning in e-learning contexts.